[Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

Tue Sep 13 18:44:52 EDT 2016

My email was not originally sent to the list; apologies.  This is what I wrote, including the example to which Heidi is referring:

"Thanks for weighing in, Aaron.  Honestly, by now I'm a bit turned around myself on this subject.  Just today I had a book with a Hebrew copyright and a Gregorian printing on the t.p. verso, and a Gregorian distribution date on the back cover.  I ended up putting [776 = 2015], but I'm not sure that's right, either.

Bottom line: it would appear that we could all use more clarification in the upcoming HCR edition."

Aaron, if I understand your question correctly, 775 [2015] is an example of a Case D (in my list below): a Heb. publ. date is given, hence no brackets, AND so is a Gregorian date, though because it isn't a publ. date, it's in brackets.  An = isn't used because the Gregorian date is not a publication date; a "that is" isn't needed because the Gregorian date isn't inferred.  Case C is for when NO Gregorian dates appear whatsoever and both dates are inferred: [775, that is, 2015].

Heidi, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Gregorian date appear before a Hebrew date.  I think my example above is ok since both the Hebrew and Gregorian dates do appear (albeit different types, hence my uncertainty); I'm confused by the suggestion of bracketing the Gregorian date in the Latin 264 and bracketing the Hebrew date in the vernacular 264.  Looking at the PCC Guidelines for Creating Bib Records in Multiple Character Sets (2016 rev.), aren't data in linked descriptive fields supposed to parallel each other?

Since that email I also had a book with a printing date of 775 and an introduction dated 24 Tevet 775, that is, 15 Jan. 2015.  The date in the 264 is bracketed, since it's not a publ. date, but no Gregorian date is given so I couldn't put an = even though I knew it was 2015.  I don't recall seeing any [775, 2015], so I put [775, that is, 2015], but again, I'm not sure it's right.  (This would be a Case E, combining cases B and D: If the date is something other than a publication date AND a more detailed Hebrew date appears elsewhere in the source, both the Hebrew form and the "translated" Gregorian date will be given in brackets [separated by what? A comma or "that is"?].)  Either way, we know it's not 2014, so I changed the date in call no. and the Date fixed fields.  (It's ocn 928129056, for those of you who want to change your local copy.)

No doubt there are bigger fish to fry, Heidi, but since so many of us are confused, I don't think there's any harm in giving more examples or more clear-cut guidelines (as I've tried to do, perhaps unsuccessfully, with my list of cases).

Jasmin

From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+jshino=pobox.upenn.edu at lists.osu.edu] On Behalf Of Heidi G Lerner
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 3:51 PM
To: Taub, Aaron; rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

Hi all,

>From my perspective RDA is fairly clear:

If we have 2 copyright dates in the resource; 1 Gregorian calendar and 1 Hebrew calendar we record them in the order in which they appear in the resource (RDA 2.11.3). Jasmin; you provided one example of how this would look but if the Gregorian date appeared first then we would record that first.

In the above example we don't have a date of publication so we infer it from the date of copyrght. We then can go to RDA 2.8.6.6. Neither the rule nor the LC-PCC PS specify what we are to do if the copyright dates [and by extension in absence of copyright dates, dates of manufacture) appear in the resource in two calendars. I would suggest that we not spend too much time trying to come up with a binding best practice and simply use cataloger's judgement in providing a bracketed date of publication.  Catalogers can supply parallel dates; single dates, etc.

Personally I would provide a bracketed Gregorian date in the Latin script 264 1 field; and a bracketed Hebrew script date in the Hebrew script 264 1 field.

I think that there are many more serious issues that we need to discuss (such as the volatile issue of romanization of foreign loan words.

Best, Heidi

________________________________
From: Heb-naco <heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu>> on behalf of Robert M. TALBOTT <rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 12:04 PM
To: Taub, Aaron
Cc: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

Thanks for your response Aaron.

What we're lacking are clear, applicable examples in the HCM.  Personally, I just don't care what the final answer is, but I think it's very important that we're all on the same page in the end.  The only way to achieve that would be to have clear answers with examples in the HCM.

Until we get a new edition of the HCM, I suggest tolerating answers to the 264#1 form-of-date dilemma you might not agree with.  It's important that we resolve it, but we should also keep in mind that in the larger scheme of things, the form of the date, so long as the date itself is correct, is less important than other elements of  the bib record.

Heidi: Perhaps this is one of those areas where we could have a temporary, work-around rule

B

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Taub, Aaron <atau at loc.gov<mailto:atau at loc.gov>> wrote:
Dear Jasmin,

Apologies for my late response.

Regarding point C in your message below, I only put "that is" if the Hebrew publishing date is also inferred and is itself in brackets.  If the Hebrew publishing date is clearly given and unbracketed, I then put the Gregorian calendar in brackets WITHOUT "that is."  Is that incorrect?  Your point C seems to suggest that it is.

775 [2015]

[775, that is, 2015] for when pub. date is inferred

Thanks,
A

-----Original Message-----
From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces+atau<mailto:heb-naco-bounces%2Batau>=loc.gov at lists.osu.edu<mailto:loc.gov at lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Shinohara, Jasmin
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:13 PM
To: rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu<mailto:rtalbott at library.berkeley.edu>; Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: Re: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

1. You write below "present on the t.p. verso" and "present on the publication"; remember that both are equivalent in terms of RDA.  The entire body of work is considered the "preferred source of information" (formerly, "chief source of information", or "csi").  Where equivalent data appears in both vernacular and Roman forms, the "=" is used to show the two "parallel" forms.

2. Unless a work _specifically_ indicates a publication dates, the dates in the 264 are bracketed.  Hence, anywhere you have either a _copyright_ or a _printing_ date, it will be in brackets.

Putting 1. and 2. together:

A. If the resource gives a date anywhere in the publication in _both_ the Hebrew and the Gregorian forms, the 264 would give both, using the = to indicate both are present.
B. If the date is something other than a publication date and appears in _both_ the Hebrew and the Gregorian forms, it will appear as [Heb. = Greg.].
C. If a publication date is ONLY given in the Heb., the Heb. form will appear without brackets and "that is" will be added to give the inferred Greg. date inside brackets.
D. If a publication date is ONLY given in the Heb., BUT there is another form of the date in the Greg. OR a more detailed Heb. date appears elsewhere in the source, the Heb. form will appear without brackets and the inferred Greg. date will be given in brackets, without either "=" or "that is" because the data is neither equivalent nor inferred.

Capiche?  Others, did I miss anything?

Jasmin

-----Original Message-----
From: Heb-naco [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.osu.edu>] On Behalf Of Robert M. TALBOTT
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:04 PM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: [Heb-NACO] 264 bracketed dates: = or that is?

Folks:

I've been seeing an awful lot of bracketed dates utilizing the equals
(=) sign, to wit:

where only a copyright of 774 and a copyright of 2014 are present on the t.p. verso

$c [774 = 2014]

As I read the HCM (2.8.6, pp. 47-48), it appears that the equals sign is only used in instances where there are two firm dates that are unbracketed.  Again, as I understand it, inside brackets, the phrase "that is" is used.

where only a copyright of 774 and a copyright of 2014 are present on the publication

$c [774, that is, 2014]

Am I wrong? Have things changed?

Thanks

Bob
--
Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

I'm just mad about Saffron
_______________________________________________
Heb-naco mailing list
Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
_______________________________________________
Heb-naco mailing list
Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu<mailto:Heb-naco at lists.osu.edu>
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco

--
Bob Talbott

Principal cataloger/Hebraica cataloger

UC Berkeley

250 Moffitt

Berkeley, CA 94720

I'm just mad about Saffron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20160913/0881ace0/attachment-0001.html>